[Arthur de Jong]
> So, what would the best solution for this problem?
>
> - request slapd to be started at sequence 18 and start nslcd at
> sequence 19 when this has changed (haven't extensively checked if that
> would cause problems for slapd)
> - add some magic to nslcd to do more retries during startup and handle
> this case especially
> - something else??
This is exactly the kind of problems the dependency based boot
sequencing is supposed to solve. See
<URL:http://wiki.debian.org/LSBInitScripts/DependencyBasedBoot> for
information about this effort. Almost all packages with init.d
scripts in Lenny now contain dependency information, and it is
definitely ready for more general testing. You would then get away
with adding a reverse dependency on slapd, and the proper sequence
would be generated automatically.
Anyway, while we wait for Debian to switch to dependency based boot
sequencing, I believe the best option for you is to get slapd moved at
the start and end. (note that when it moves earlier in the boot, it
should also move later in the shutdown. If it should move to 18 or an
earlier number, depend on which other packages depend on it. Perhaps
you can use the LSB-style dependency headers to track down packages
that need to start before slapd, in case any of those need to be moved
too.
> This also brings up the problem with what to do with existing
> installations. If I understand correctly changing the parameter to
> update-rc.d will not change any existing symlinks so any changes
> that are made now will only affect existing installations.
This is correct. If you want to change the sequence number, the only
option provided by the update-rc.d interface is to remove all
start/stop symlinks and insert it again with new sequence numbers. I
suspect we should extend the update-rc.d interface to make this easier
too, unless we just switch to dependency based boot sequencing and
thus can forget about these sequence numbers.
Happy hacking,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen